This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Bjørn Lomborg article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
Archives: 1, 2, 3Auto-archiving period: 90 days |
The subject of this article is controversial and content may be in dispute. When updating the article, be bold, but not reckless. Feel free to try to improve the article, but don't take it personally if your changes are reversed; instead, come here to the talk page to discuss them. Content must be written from a neutral point of view. Include citations when adding content and consider tagging or removing unsourced information. |
Please stay calm and civil while commenting or presenting evidence, and do not make personal attacks. Be patient when approaching solutions to any issues. If consensus is not reached, other solutions exist to draw attention and ensure that more editors mediate or comment on the dispute. |
This article must adhere to the biographies of living persons (BLP) policy, even if it is not a biography, because it contains material about living persons. Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced must be removed immediately from the article and its talk page, especially if potentially libellous. If such material is repeatedly inserted, or if you have other concerns, please report the issue to this noticeboard.If you are a subject of this article, or acting on behalf of one, and you need help, please see this help page. |
This article is rated B-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to multiple WikiProjects. | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
This article was reviewed by
Nature (journal) on December 14, 2005. Comments: It was found to have 1 error. For more information about external reviews of Wikipedia articles and about this review in particular, see this page. |
[1] "Lomborg and the Copenhagen Consensus Center do not seem to deny that climate change is happening or man-made, but discuss the economics of the remedies." This is bullshit. Climate change denial does not just mean "deny that climate change is happening or man-made". There are other flavors, and Lomborg has some of them. -- Hob Gadling ( talk) 11:59, 10 July 2020 (UTC)
he's agreed anthropogenic climate change is a thingA tiny, non-threatening thing we can safely ignore. Which it is not. As I said above,
There are other flavors, and Lomborg has some of them. -- Hob Gadling ( talk) 12:48, 28 June 2023 (UTC)
Doesn't think it is a high priority and adaptation can cope with the short term effectsis denialism. M.boli ( talk) 05:10, 29 June 2023 (UTC)
Example textThat is just a denialist talking point, not reality. The denialist, non-consensus position is the only political one. -- Hob Gadling ( talk) 09:17, 29 June 2023 (UTC)
A drunk who insists their drinking isn't causing problems, and besides a little alcohol is good for you, and there are better things to think about, and maybe next year, is in denial.
Lomborg has devoted much of his professional career to saying a little warming is good for you, and the world could better focus its attention elsewhere, and it isn't causing so much problem, and maybe in a few years we can do something.
It is the same way a person can admit to drinking a lot of alcohol and deny there is a problem. We wouldn't call called them an "alcoholist" or say they are "skeptical." Lomborg is a denier. -- M.boli ( talk) 20:41, 10 July 2021 (UTC)
The link in footnote [9] is dead, but it remains archived at https://web.archive.org/web/20150316130136/http://www.cprm.gov.br/33IGC/1343527.
I'm adding the full quote: "one couldn't prove that Lomborg had deliberately been scientifically dishonest, although he had broken the rules of scientific practice in that he interpreted results beyond the conclusions of the authors he cited", because I think it is more nuanced than "it misrepresented scientific facts." Pushback welcome, particularly because it might be too long for the header section.
Aristotles ( talk) 11:09, 28 September 2021 (UTC)
Subject to the proviso that the book is to be evaluated as science, there has been such perversion of the scientific message in the form of systematically biased representation that the objective criteria for upholding scientific dishonesty-cf. Danish Order No. 533 of 15 December 1998-have been met. In consideration of the extraordinarily wide-ranging scientific topics dealt with by the defendant without having any special scientific expertise, however, DCSD has not found-or felt able to procure-sufficient grounds to deem that the defendant has misled his readers deliberately or with gross negligence.
References
@ PhotographyEdits:: Since the article is tagged as needing tertiary sources, please don't delete this tertiary source. Also, since the next paragraph starts critiquing Lomborg, I think it is important to maintain the third-party reference to "Business Insider", which confirms that Lomborg is a global player in the area of climate controversies. I would ask you to revert the deletion. -- Melchior2006 ( talk) 12:26, 28 May 2023 (UTC)
@ PhotographyEdits:: My view coincides with Melchior2006 and Peter Gulutzan, including the latter's preference for the original version--"In 2009, Business Insider cited Lomborg as one of "The 10 Most-Respected Global Warming Skeptics".--which I consider more straightforward, succinct and neutral. It provides global context to Lomborg's positioning in the overall public climate change debate. I suggest reverting to the original version. Tsavage ( talk) 16:43, 28 May 2023 (UTC)
I should bring this here to avoid an edit war: I had removed "incorrectly" under "Views on Climate Change" and suggested that any reversion at least offer a source, and be more professional and academic in tone. Someone provided a source, which is appreciated, but added "but he was wrong," which sounds even more polemical, and frankly immature. I reviewed the source and summarized its assertions, but now it has been reverted back to "but he was wrong." Surely there's a more thoughtful and careful way to express whatever it is that needs to be expressed here. Jmaranvi ( talk) 13:46, 2 August 2023 (UTC)
This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Bjørn Lomborg article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
Archives: 1, 2, 3Auto-archiving period: 90 days |
The subject of this article is controversial and content may be in dispute. When updating the article, be bold, but not reckless. Feel free to try to improve the article, but don't take it personally if your changes are reversed; instead, come here to the talk page to discuss them. Content must be written from a neutral point of view. Include citations when adding content and consider tagging or removing unsourced information. |
Please stay calm and civil while commenting or presenting evidence, and do not make personal attacks. Be patient when approaching solutions to any issues. If consensus is not reached, other solutions exist to draw attention and ensure that more editors mediate or comment on the dispute. |
This article must adhere to the biographies of living persons (BLP) policy, even if it is not a biography, because it contains material about living persons. Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced must be removed immediately from the article and its talk page, especially if potentially libellous. If such material is repeatedly inserted, or if you have other concerns, please report the issue to this noticeboard.If you are a subject of this article, or acting on behalf of one, and you need help, please see this help page. |
This article is rated B-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to multiple WikiProjects. | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
This article was reviewed by
Nature (journal) on December 14, 2005. Comments: It was found to have 1 error. For more information about external reviews of Wikipedia articles and about this review in particular, see this page. |
[1] "Lomborg and the Copenhagen Consensus Center do not seem to deny that climate change is happening or man-made, but discuss the economics of the remedies." This is bullshit. Climate change denial does not just mean "deny that climate change is happening or man-made". There are other flavors, and Lomborg has some of them. -- Hob Gadling ( talk) 11:59, 10 July 2020 (UTC)
he's agreed anthropogenic climate change is a thingA tiny, non-threatening thing we can safely ignore. Which it is not. As I said above,
There are other flavors, and Lomborg has some of them. -- Hob Gadling ( talk) 12:48, 28 June 2023 (UTC)
Doesn't think it is a high priority and adaptation can cope with the short term effectsis denialism. M.boli ( talk) 05:10, 29 June 2023 (UTC)
Example textThat is just a denialist talking point, not reality. The denialist, non-consensus position is the only political one. -- Hob Gadling ( talk) 09:17, 29 June 2023 (UTC)
A drunk who insists their drinking isn't causing problems, and besides a little alcohol is good for you, and there are better things to think about, and maybe next year, is in denial.
Lomborg has devoted much of his professional career to saying a little warming is good for you, and the world could better focus its attention elsewhere, and it isn't causing so much problem, and maybe in a few years we can do something.
It is the same way a person can admit to drinking a lot of alcohol and deny there is a problem. We wouldn't call called them an "alcoholist" or say they are "skeptical." Lomborg is a denier. -- M.boli ( talk) 20:41, 10 July 2021 (UTC)
The link in footnote [9] is dead, but it remains archived at https://web.archive.org/web/20150316130136/http://www.cprm.gov.br/33IGC/1343527.
I'm adding the full quote: "one couldn't prove that Lomborg had deliberately been scientifically dishonest, although he had broken the rules of scientific practice in that he interpreted results beyond the conclusions of the authors he cited", because I think it is more nuanced than "it misrepresented scientific facts." Pushback welcome, particularly because it might be too long for the header section.
Aristotles ( talk) 11:09, 28 September 2021 (UTC)
Subject to the proviso that the book is to be evaluated as science, there has been such perversion of the scientific message in the form of systematically biased representation that the objective criteria for upholding scientific dishonesty-cf. Danish Order No. 533 of 15 December 1998-have been met. In consideration of the extraordinarily wide-ranging scientific topics dealt with by the defendant without having any special scientific expertise, however, DCSD has not found-or felt able to procure-sufficient grounds to deem that the defendant has misled his readers deliberately or with gross negligence.
References
@ PhotographyEdits:: Since the article is tagged as needing tertiary sources, please don't delete this tertiary source. Also, since the next paragraph starts critiquing Lomborg, I think it is important to maintain the third-party reference to "Business Insider", which confirms that Lomborg is a global player in the area of climate controversies. I would ask you to revert the deletion. -- Melchior2006 ( talk) 12:26, 28 May 2023 (UTC)
@ PhotographyEdits:: My view coincides with Melchior2006 and Peter Gulutzan, including the latter's preference for the original version--"In 2009, Business Insider cited Lomborg as one of "The 10 Most-Respected Global Warming Skeptics".--which I consider more straightforward, succinct and neutral. It provides global context to Lomborg's positioning in the overall public climate change debate. I suggest reverting to the original version. Tsavage ( talk) 16:43, 28 May 2023 (UTC)
I should bring this here to avoid an edit war: I had removed "incorrectly" under "Views on Climate Change" and suggested that any reversion at least offer a source, and be more professional and academic in tone. Someone provided a source, which is appreciated, but added "but he was wrong," which sounds even more polemical, and frankly immature. I reviewed the source and summarized its assertions, but now it has been reverted back to "but he was wrong." Surely there's a more thoughtful and careful way to express whatever it is that needs to be expressed here. Jmaranvi ( talk) 13:46, 2 August 2023 (UTC)